Mathman, care to demonstrate with videos quads and 3As that that you deem better according to each bullet point? Will be much appreciated.

That is an interesting challenge, but will take some time. (I'm not sure I feel up to it. )

However, to me the GOE bullets are supposed to set absolute standards, not to to compare one skater to another.

In category 3, "varied position in the air / delayed rotations," I know what that means even if no skater has ever done it on a quad attempt. Dorothy Hamill had a great delayed single Axel. Brian Boitano did a triple Lutz with a hand over his head and Adam Rippon does it with two hands up. These are "varied positions." Neither Patrick or anyone else has done this for a quad, so neither Patrick nor anyone else deserves credit for this bullet.

For criterion 1), again, I don't think anyone, Patrick or otherwise, has ever done, say, a hydroplane into a quad. Matt Savoie used to do a hydroplane into a triple Lutz. That would earn this bullet, IMHO.

For 2), Patrick's skating just before his solo quad and his triple Axel was great, but I would have a quibble about the language "immediately preceding." How immediate is immediate? I could find example of skaters doing lesser jumps (Johnny Weir had a sort of spiral into a triple Lutz) in which the immediacy is more immediate.

Again, the question is not whether anyone did it better, but whether Patrick or anyone else satisfied the requirement for the bullet.

What struck me about the wording for requirements 4, 5, and 6, is that the skater merely has to be "good" in the areas of height and distance, extension, and flow. Certainly Patrick, like many others, is "good" in these areas. To me it seems like the wording should be changed to "outstanding."

I wonder if some bullet points may be somewhat relative, according to the level of difficulties. E.g. The definition of immediacy for a quad jump may be different from that for a triple because most quad jumps require much more set up time and distance so a similar entry for a quad as for a triple will be very impressive. Similarly what is good for a lesser jump will be consider great for a more difficult jump, because few ever do it as "good".

In Patrick's case, his speed may play a trick on perception as well. E.g. the distance of the last step may not be immediate but it's actually immediate time wise. While some stroke down the whole rink to get to a quad jump, he has multiple twists and turns on deep edges down the same length before the jump but in a much shorter time. Do these steps count? They should, especially when they are absent from others' jump entries.

I was the first to write that this was not a perfect skate from Patrick yet, so I'm not here to argue for perfect mark for every element and component. But I do believe the high scores reflect the values of what he really put out there and then on the ice.

I wonder if some bullet points may be somewhat relative, according to the level of difficulties. E.g. The definition of immediacy for a quad jump may be different from that for a triple because most quad jumps require much more set up time and distance so a similar entry for a quad as for a triple will be very impressive. Similarly what is good for a lesser jump will be consider great for a more difficult jump, because few ever do it as "good".

I have no doubt that judges think like that, but I think it is wrong.

A satisfactory quad deserves 0 GOE just like a satisfactory double Axel, if it has nothing special going for it except that it matches the requirements for the jump. There is no reason to give positive GOE for a quad just because it's so darn hard.

The base value of a quad should be raised because its so darn hard (to 13.5 points in my scheme ). Then if anyone ever did a quad out of a hydroplane with his hands over his head, we could talk about "unusual entry" and "varied air position."

Then if anyone ever did a quad out of a hydroplane with his hands over his head, we could talk about "unusual entry" and "varied air position."

First let's see someone do that for a double or triple.

I added an elaboration in my post above, about Patrick's entries into his quads which may take similar distance as others but with more varied steps and in a shorter time. Will you take that into consideration for an entry?

A satisfactory quad deserves 0 GOE just like a satisfactory double Axel, if it has nothing special going for it except that it matches the requirements for the jump. There is no reason to give positive GOE for a quad just because it's so darn hard.

Are you saying that a skater who does steps and footwork the length of the ice and then does a quad should have exactly the same score as someone who spends 20 seconds stroking and building speed until my husband yells "Jump already!" at the TV screen? Assuming of course that the actual quad is of similar quality.

Are you saying that a skater who does steps and footwork the length of the ice and then does a quad should have exactly the same score as someone who spends 20 seconds stroking and building speed until my husband yells "Jump already!" at the TV screen? Assuming of course that the actual quad is of similar quality.

No, the second skater would get negative GOE for "extra long preparation" and the first skater would earn the bullet for "recognizable steps and skating moves' into the jump, which would give him a positive GOE if he had another bullet or two.

I am not saying to eliminate positive GOEs on quads, only that you should have to earn them, according to the rules, just like any other jump.

No, the second skater would get negative GOE for "extra long preparation" and the first skater would earn the bullet for "recognizable steps and skating moves' into the jump, which would give him a positive GOE if he had another bullet or two.

I am not saying to eliminate positive GOEs on quads, only that you should have to earn them, according to the rules, just like any other jump.

But the extra long preparation used to be the standard, not extra long, until Patrick came along with his quads. Which should be the standard now? If the old standard holds, it should not be penalized but the new fancy entry should be awarded. If the new fancy entry is established as the current standard, then most quads would receive negative GOE, and only hydro blading with arms above into a quad would receive WOW points. Is this fair?

This was never the case. There was always specific criteria for GoE, both plus and minus.

From your knowledgeable posts I believe that you are a skating expert or insider, so I don't have any basis to challenge that claim. But if so, the ISU was quite stingy in sharing the positive GOE features with the public.

My memory is that it was in preparation for the 2008-09 season that the ISU gave a detailed look at what the judges were supposed to be rewarding in positive GOEs. Communication 1494 came out as usual with new base values, criteria for levels, and lists of errors to be enforced as negative GOEs. Then in July 2008 they put out a separate document, Communication 1505, which gave supplemental discussion of positive GOEs. My impression at the time was that this was the first such official document (at least the first one shared with the public), and that it was issued in part to make precise exactly what the judges should be looking for.

It is very interesting to compare this first list of bullets (if it really was the first) with the current one. In the 2208 document bullets 4, 5, and 6 said

4. "Great height and distance" (now it is "good")

5. "Superior extension" (now it is "good")

6. "Superior flow in and out" (now it is "good")

Furthermore, there were only 6 bullets and you had to get at least 5 out of 6, instead of the current 5 out of 8, to get a +3.

To me, there are two ways to think about the changes. My first impression was that it was a case of sheer "grade inflation" -- the ISU wanted to make it easier to get big positive GOEs. If so, their strategy worked.

But you could also argue that "superior" is deliberately comparative, whereas "good" could mean compared to a fixed standard. I think the first interpretation of the ISU's intent is the right one, however.

I added an elaboration in my post above, about Patrick's entries into his quads which may take similar distance as others but with more varied steps and in a shorter time. Will you take that into consideration for an entry?

Yeah, I've got to give it up for the boy. His choreography into both the quad and the triple Axel is first rate.

Originally Posted by Skatefiguring

But the extra long preparation used to be the standard, not extra long, until Patrick came along with his quads. Which should be the standard now? If the old standard holds, it should not be penalized but the new fancy entry should be awarded. If the new fancy entry is established as the current standard, then most quads would receive negative GOE, and only hydro blading with arms above into a quad would receive WOW points. Is this fair?

Rulz is rulz. "Long preparation" = -1 to -2 GOE. If this wasn't enforced in the past, shame on the judges. It should be enforced now, on all jumps, quads along with others.

Again, I do not think that the GOEs are the place to acknowledge the difficulty of an element. That should be reflected in base value. The GOEs should reward quality, whether on a hard element or on an easy one.

Maybe your husband needs some medication to help improve his patience, in addition to an understanding of what dramatic build-up is. Rewarding a skater for doing as many movements as possible, when it does not go with the music, is the same as rewarding a filmmaker for cutting every 3 seconds within the scene just because they can. Just because you can add more, that doesn't mean it produces a greater effect. Sometimes it detracts, in fact. If you stop to think about it, this is the same as the Canadian criticism of so many Russian costumes. It's something that everyone in fashion is aware of; intricately sewing tons of feathers and sparkly pieces onto a dress maybe be extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean the dress is something anyone wants to wear.

Attention spans around the World have likely dropped as a result of how modern media is handled, people have been trained to become restless at slow pacing of television/film, and such is sadly the case with how figure skating is evolving as a result of how the CoP is being handled. Obviously stalking jumps too much is a bad thing but that doesn't mean there isn't a time and a place for simplicity and for relatively long approaches into jumps, with nothing but simple movements leading up to it. It all comes down to the music and the character of the program. In film, sometimes you want quick cuts and sometimes you want long cuts. It's no different in figure skating. If we only reward tons of transitions in programs, then the sport is losing much of what makes it special and losing a vast amount of potential variety. Who wants to watch nothing but action films, if you are an adult of non-[color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color] intelligence?

If Stojko, Plushenko, and Joubert stalk their quads for the sake of drama, why haven't they demonstrated quad jumps with short or foot step entries to the music, even once in a while since they do so many quads? Or at least with some artistic arm flailing? OTOH, why don't they sometimes stalk a double jump or a single for the sake of artistry? A little variety should be a treat for the fans and to show off their artistic versatility.

Maybe your husband needs some medication to help improve his patience, in addition to an understanding of what dramatic build-up is. Rewarding a skater for doing as many movements as possible, when it does not go with the music, is the same as rewarding a filmmaker for cutting every 3 seconds within the scene just because they can. Just because you can add more, that doesn't mean it produces a greater effect. Sometimes it detracts, in fact. If you stop to think about it, this is the same as the Canadian criticism of so many Russian costumes. It's something that everyone in fashion is aware of; intricately sewing tons of feathers and sparkly pieces onto a dress maybe be extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean the dress is something anyone wants to wear.

Attention spans around the World have likely dropped as a result of how modern media is handled, people have been trained to become restless at slow pacing of television/film, and such is sadly the case with how figure skating is evolving as a result of how the CoP is being handled. Obviously stalking jumps too much is a bad thing but that doesn't mean there isn't a time and a place for simplicity and for relatively long approaches into jumps, with nothing but simple movements leading up to it. It all comes down to the music and the character of the program. In film, sometimes you want quick cuts and sometimes you want long cuts. It's no different in figure skating. If we only reward tons of transitions in programs, then the sport is losing much of what makes it special and losing a vast amount of potential variety. Who wants to watch nothing but action films, if you are an adult of non-[color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color] intelligence?

Sorry Blades, but this post is so ridiculously OTT that I had to take my medication so I could finish reading it.